Free will deniers

[Koldo]

The act of imagining is caused by the brain. Which is me. So anything internal to the casual agent is not external causation. This includes memories, imaginations, feelings, desires. So as long as the causation comes internally from the brain, I consider it as being willed from the casual agent.

The problem I think is you limit the casual agent to only the part of the brain which is consciously aware. So if you are not casually aware/conscious of it then you are not being at cause. I think that is where most philosophers run into problems to is they limit the casual agent to only the "conscious self".

So while you may not be consciously under control the brain is. Which rightly should be taken in its entirety as being the casual agent.

The very act of limiting the casual agent to only the part of the brain which is consciously aware, which is only a small fraction of the brain, cuts off the actual causality the brain is capable of.

Your are looking for causality were it is not and say you see none.

Free will only requires that the brain can choose between alternate courses of action without the choice being made is influenced by and external, external from the brain, cause.

So unless you can show what cause, external to the brain, influenced my choice with what to do with my arm, you haven't yet countered my argument.

Let me see if I got this right: You would say that someone had the freedom to do otherwise (free will) because, rather than the conscious part of someone being under control of the outcome of a given choice, the other mental processes could have somehow worked differently at the moment a choice was taken, thus leading to a different alternative being picked. Is this correct?

If so, I don't actually think there is a significant disagreement between us then. It just comes down to you having a lower bar for what constitutes free will. You don't seem to be defending the traditional (philosophical) view of free will.

 

[Estro Felino]

Let me see if I got this right: You would say that someone had the freedom to do otherwise (free will) because, rather than the conscious part of someone being under control of the outcome of a given choice, the other mental processes could have somehow worked differently at the moment a choice was taken, thus leading to a different alternative being picked. Is this correct?

If so, I don't actually think there is a significant disagreement between us then. It just comes down to you having a lower bar for what constitutes free will. You don't seem to be defending the traditional (philosophical) view of free will.

One question: is there a difference between us humans and animals, in your opinion?

 

[Heyo]

I like this reasoning very much.
Very profound. But I gave an answer by saying that other people enslave us, so deprive us of our freedom, and that gives us the illusion that our will is not free.

That was the situation in the 18th c and a reason for the enlightenment. I wouldn't compare the situation today to that of then. Today's situation is that of Learned Helplessness. They no longer tell us that we can't think for ourselves, they just tell us that we can't do anything by ourselves.

 

[Koldo]

One question: is there a difference between us humans and animals, in your opinion?

We probably have the biggest capacity to reason out of all species.

 

[Trailblazer]

But just it being useful and desirable doesn't change the fact that there is no step in the decision making process in the brain where freedom plays a role.

To say that free choice plays no role in the decision making process is to make a sham of the entire justice system, all over the world.
If there was no free will then nobody could be held accountable for their behavior.

It is all just predetermination or quantum randomness.
Reality sucks - but it is still better to understand it and deal with it than living in a dream world.

What sucks is that we are all responsible for our choices - but it is still better to understand it and deal with it than living in a dream world where everything is predetermined and nobody is responsible for anything they do. What a cop-out.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And speaking of choices, I know I have choices since I am self-aware. For example, I know I chose to respond to this post even though I would rather not have done so. I answer a lot of posts I don't want to answer because I feel it is my moral responsibility, but I know I have a choice not to answer them. The fact that I choose to answer them anyway shows that I have free will to choose. Day in day out I make choices like these because I have free will to choose. I am not saying that I am free to choose anything I want to choose, since free will is constrained by ability and opportunity, but I can make choices between a and b.

 

[Estro Felino]

That was the situation in the 18th c and a reason for the enlightenment. I wouldn't compare the situation today to that of then. Today's situation is that of Learned Helplessness. They no longer tell us that we can't think for ourselves, they just tell us that we can't do anything by ourselves.

...which is false.
I mean, theoretically a person could live on a desert island for many years. Alone.
Free. Totally free to decide, whether to swim, to fish, to hunt, to grow some plants...

Freedom does exist.
The problem arises when the person A considers himself superior to the person B, the person C, and so on.
So they feel entitled to enslave them.
To exploit them.

As if A were better than B or C.
We all will die someday. Tomorrow I can die in a bicycle accident...
So what makes me different than A, since A will die too someday?

That's why Heidegger, another great thinker said that das Sein zum Tode is the only way to understand who we are, what we are and why we are here. And he was an atheist.

 

[Estro Felino]

We probably have the biggest capacity to reason out of all species.

So if a rapist rapes a woman, he can say that he couldn't have done otherwise.
Because it was spring...he was in heat...as the other animals...right?

 

[Trailblazer]

We must hold him accountable.

even though he is not responsible? That is completely illogical.

 

[Koldo]

So if a rapist rapes a woman, he can say that he couldn't have done otherwise.
Because it was spring...he was in heat...as the other animals...right?

Even if he said that, what difference would it make?

 

[Trailblazer]

So if a rapist rapes a woman, he can say that he couldn't have done otherwise.
Because it was spring...he was in heat...as the other animals...right?

He can say that but it will never hold up in any court of law because everyone knows we have free will to choose between right and wrong, upon which the entire justice system is based.

 

[Heyo]

even though he is not responsible? That is completely illogical.

It is logical. We don't hold him responsible because he chose to go to war, we hold him responsible because he went to war. That is against the law. We have no choice in the matter, we just follow the law because we have a moral obligation.
"Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders." - Martin Luther
(Here I stand, I can do no other.)

 

[Koldo]

Tell this to @Koldo, who says free will doesn't exist.

I am sorry but whatever it is that you want to be told to me by that person is not going to happen because I have put that member in my ignore list. But if there is anything you want to tell me, feel free to do so.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is logical. We don't hold him responsible because he chose to go to war, we hold him responsible because he went to war. That is against the law. We have no choice in the matter, we just follow the law because we have a moral obligation.
"Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders." - Martin Luther
(Here I stand, I can do no other.)

You quoted a philosopher-theologian who is one of the most important theorists of the unfree will.
In English the translation is pretty inaccurate. It is actually geknechteter Wille.


But Luther was a theist. He speaks of how our salvation depends on God's will.

I am speaking from a rational-atheistic perspective. Free will is something that is the embodiment of anthropocentrism.

 

[Estro Felino]

I am sorry but whatever it is that you want to be told to me by that person is not going to happen because I have put that member in my ignore list. But if there is anything you want to tell me, feel free to do so.

I can tell you this only:

free will is often misinterpreted. It's considered something absolute. An absolute concept.
It's just freedom of thought. Freedom to be whatever you want.

God gave us free will and gave us the possibility to either believe in Him or not believe in His existence.
It's beautiful.
God loves believers and non-believers equally. Actually a priest said that God loves atheists even more.

 

[Nakosis]

If so, I don't actually think there is a significant disagreement between us then. It just comes down to you having a lower bar for what constitutes free will. You don't seem to be defending the traditional (philosophical) view of free will.

I don't think the philosophical definition of free will can be defended.
The argument has be structured so the only possible conclusion is that free will is incoherent.

 

[Trailblazer]

We don't hold him responsible because he chose to go to war, we hold him responsible because he went to war.

There is no difference.
He went to war because he chose to go to war. Had he not chosen to go to war he would not have gone to war.

 

[Koldo]

I don't think the philosophical definition of free will can be defended.
The argument has be structured so the only possible conclusion is that free will is incoherent.

Yet, there are those who disagree...
@Left Coast , for example, probably wouldn't consider what you are calling free will to be free will.

 

[Heyo]

There is no difference.
He went to war because he chose to go to war. Had he not chosen to go to war he would not have gone to war.

You are presupposing what is debated.
Does the rain chose to fall? Does the sun chose to shine?
If Putin has no free will, he didn't chose to go to war. He just acted according to his nature.
We then condemn him for his action because that is in our nature. There is no logical conflict.
If Putin had free will, he chose to go to war. That would be a condemn-able action. No logical conflict either.

The only way there would be a conflict, would be if we'd say that Putin had no free will but we have. It would also be a serious case of hubris.

 

[Estro Felino]

You are presupposing what is debated.
Does the rain chose to fall? Does the sun chose to shine?
If Putin has no free will, he didn't chose to go to war. He just acted according to his nature.
We then condemn him for his action because that is in our nature. There is no logical conflict.
If Putin had free will, he chose to go to war. That would be a condemn-able action. No logical conflict either.

The only way there would be a conflict, would be if we'd say that Putin had no free will but we have. It would also be a serious case of hubris.

The answer is very simple.
Putin possesses free will and he used it to wage this war. So he is to be held accountable for this war.
It was not something inevitable. It was something avoidable.

And this should convince people here that I absolutely condemn this war.


I don't understand why people think war is something inevitable. It's not. It's avoidable.
If women ruled the world, there would be zero wars. I am sorry, that's the plain truth.,

 

[Trailblazer]

The only way there would be a conflict, would be if we'd say that Putin had no free will but we have. It would also be a serious case of hubris.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying we all have free will.